When You Need The
BEST Hard Chrome to
Extend Product Life
Reduce Wear . . . choose Durafin ^{SFP ®}

It's so good . . . we registered the name!

The DuraFin SFP^® hard chrome plating process combines maximum plating efficiencies with careful quality control procedures to ensure a quality product that yields superior performance. Chromium deposits from the DuraFin SFP^® process have proven to be harder, smoother, brighter, and more durable than both conventional and mixed-catalyst processes. The following data documents extensive testing performed to establish wearability, corrosion resistance and effects of variations in the plating conditions.

WEAR PROPERTIES
Which method provides chromium plating that stands up the best?

1. TESTING FOR: Resistance to dry abrasion.

METHOD: The Taber Abraser, an industry standard, was used to measure dry abrasive wear on samples, chrome-plated by each of the three chrome plating processes: the conventional, mixed catalyst and DuraFin SFP^®. The sample was placed on the instrument's revolving sample holder and a load was applied, rubbing against the sample's surface. A vacuum picked up residual particles to prevent their affecting the abrasiveness. The weight loss of the sample after a given number of revolutions provides an indication of its relative resistance to abrasive wear.

 RESULTS

CONCLUSION: Chromium deposits obtained from the DuraFin SFP^®. hard chrome process exhibited significantly less wear than mixed catalyst deposits and nearly 25% less than conventional deposits.

2. TESTING FOR: Resistance to lubricated sliding wear.

 METHOD: The Falex Lubricated Wear Test used conventional, mixed catalyst and DuraFin SFP^®. hard chrome plated pins, revolving at 270 revolutions per minutes between two unplated steel blocks while immersed in a temperature controlled oil bath. With a measured force, the blocks are pressed against the pin, creating wear which is calibrated by measuring the weight loss of both the pin and blocks.

  

CONCLUSION: Hard chrome deposits obtained from the DuraFin SFP^®. process consistently exhibited significantly more resistance to sliding wear than samples plated from mixed catalyst and conventional chemistries.

3. TESTING FOR: Lubricated engine wear (simulated).

METHOD: A new testing apparatus providing for laboratory simulation of engine wear was developed at the University of Michigan. This simulator, designated EMA-LS9, recreates the relative part geometry's of an engine and duplicates the engine's operating conditions utilizing three variables: lubrication, pressure and temperature. For the tests, piston rings were plated using all three chemistries: DuraFin SFP^®., mixed catalyst and conventional chromium. Each type of plated ring was tested in the engine simulator and wear was measured by the size of the worn area.

RESULTS:

 

CONCLUSIONS: Piston rings plated with the DuraFin SFP^®. process demonstrated a significantly superior resistance to wear under the simulated engine conditions.

4. TESTING FOR: Chromium plating protection of substrate.

METHOD: Corrosion resistance is the summation of pre-plating, plating and post-plating processing, and of the plating bath chemistry. In order to examine only the effect of the bath chemistry, tests were performed with as much control of pre-plating and post-plating variables as possible. To minimize the pre-treatment effects, standardized steel rods from only one lot of steel were prepared by the same methods with final polishing using 600 grit silicon carbide paper. The samples were then plated in each of the three basic bath chemistries under conditions that were optimum for each process. No post-plating processing, such as grinding, buffing or super finishing was performed in order the eliminate this as a variable. The samples were then subjected to Neutral Salt Spray testing to acquire comparable corrosion data. In determining the effectiveness of a plating process to protect the substrate, an analysis of the chromium micocrack density was made. Deposits with low microcrack densities have microcracks that are longer and tend to extend to the substrate. In chromium deposits with a higher microcrack count, the microcracks are shorter and shallower, providing superior protection to the substrates under corrosive conditions.

RESULTS:

CONCLUSION: In all cases, the Durafin SFP^® process resulted in less corrosion failures than the other two methods of plating.

SUMMARY

In all three categories of tests and in each individual test, chromium deposited using the DuraFin SFP^®  hard chrome plating method proved superior to both mixed catalyst and conventional procedures. These studies as well as real world experience confirm that deposits form the DuraFin SFP^® process significantly outperform other hard chromium coatings. When a design calls for hard functional chromium plating, the superior wear properties and corrosion protection provided by the DuraFin SFP^® process assure brighter, harder, more durable deposits, with less part to part variability. DuraFin SFP^® has proven to be a superior chromium plating method in every way.